


mmm 



IB 



<i'i^* 







/ 



NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 



SPEECH 



EON. M. A. NICHOLS, OF OHIO^ 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. APRIL 5, 1854, 



Delivered in ike Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, 



The House bein^' in Committee of the Whole 
on the stfite of the Union- 
Mr. NICHOLS obtained the floor, and said: 
1 have obtained the floor, Mr. Chairman, for the 
purpose of protesting against the passage of tlie 
Nebraska bill in its present shape. I v/iil not vote 
for either of the territorial bills now before us, 
while either the one or the other contains a repeal 
of the iMissouri compromise or the Clayton amend- 
ment. 

In assuming this position, sir, I am fully aware 
of all its responsibilities. Like most northern 
men, I have felt the rough consequences of this 
slavery agitation. Like most northern men who 
have seats heie, I have a constituency divided to 
some extent upon this question. But, in examin- 
ing the question, I have not counted the chances 
of my own preservation, or estimated v/hat expe- 
diency required of me. The reproach of" skulk- 
ing behind my constituency" the gentleman from 
Vn-gin!a [Mr. Smith] shall never apply to me. 
What duty, my own senseof right, and justice de- 
mands of me, 1 will discharge, regardless of con- 
sequences. My own philosophy has long since 
taugiit me, that to give my vote to a project con- 
demned by my deliberate judgment would be a 
degradation much too flutter and unpalatable for 
me lo relisli; and I regrlf, sir, not the fact that my 
ovyn sense of justice constrains me to vote against 
this bill, but that in doing so I cannotfeel assured 
of its complete overthrow. 

I suppose, sir, the House will bear with me 
■•'hile I attempt a historical review of this ques- 
^Of. It is necessary to me in defining my posi- 

In 1&18 Missouri first petitioned Congress for 
admissiof. as a Slate. The question was opened 
on the 18th of December of that year, and on the 
19lh of the ^uoceeding February we find the House 
applying to her a clause prohibiting the further 
introduction of slavery into her borders by a vote 
of 87 yeas to 7G nays. March 15th another amend- 
ment was adopted m the words following: "All 
children born in said State, after the admission 
thereof, sliall be free after the age of twenty-five 



years." I instance these two amendments, Mr. 
Chairman, for a purpose that I shall indicate here- 
after. They were struck out by the Senate, and, 
as the House refused to recede from them., the bill 
failed at that session. All efforts to harmonize 
were ineffectual. At the next session of Congress, 
December, 1819, the subject was resumed. The 
struggles of that period have been so long matters 
of history, they were of themselves so pregnant 
with important consequences, that I may be ex- 
cused from adverting to them in detail. Out of 
the contest sprang the far-famed Missouri act, the 
essential feature of which to the North was the 
following: 

"Jindbe it further enacted, That in all that tenilory ceded 
liy France to Uie Ur.ited States under tlie name of Louis- 
iana, which lies north of 36° 30' north latitude, not included 
within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, 
slavery andinvohintary servituJe, other .vise than in thejpuiv- 
islimcnt of crimes u-hereof the parties xhall have heen duly 
convicted, shall be, and hereby is, prohibited forever," 

This feature, sir, harmonized the action of Con- 
gre.'fs; and in the progress of events, and the lapse 
of time. It harmonized the opinions of the country. 

Well, sir, Missouri came into the Union, but 
not without some farther difficulties. Her consti- 
tution excluded free negroes; and as it was con- 
tended in this body that she could not constitu- 
tionally do this thing, she was compelled to come 
in under Mr. Clay's resolution, giving a construc- 
tion to that provision of her constitution, which, 
under judicial decisions, has rendered it nugatory. 
Missouri adopted that construction; and as this 
constitutional impediment was the only difficulty 
of any magnitude, subsequent to the passage of 
the act of Congress authorizing her to form her 
State constitution, she came into the Union bound 
by the faith, spirit, and intent of that act. 

This act was one of a series, by which Con- 
gress has, from time to time, settled the character 
of particular Territories. In its scope it was lim- 
ited to the Louisiana Territory, acquired from 
France in 1803. As these slavery adjustments, 
from the exciting nature of the question involved, 
have always been regarded final as to their par- 
ticular objects, and in the nature of irrepealable 



2 



,Ni 



d^. 



laws, so the Missouri act has always been regarder) 
a.s final, so far as the Louisiana Territory is con- 
cerned. 1 quote now, sir, from Niles's Register, 
immediately after the passage of this IVIissouri act: 

" It is true the compromhe is supjiorted only by Ike letter 
of the lav. rcjiealable by the authority which enacted it; but 
the circumstances of the case •^icetotliis law a moral force 
equal to that oj a -positive provision of the Constitution; and 
ve do not hazard anything by saying tliat the Constitution 
exists in its obseri-ancc. Boll) p;ii-lies liave sacrificed much 
to conciliation. IVe irish to see the compact kept in good 
faith, and \vc trust lliata kind Providence will open the 
way to relieve us of an evil which every good citizen dep- 
recates as the supreme curse of the country." 

In 1820, the Constitution existed only in the 
observance of the Missouri act. Now we are 
told the Constitution can only exist in its over- 
throw. 

March 1, 1845, when the joint resolutions for 
the annexation of Texas were pending, I find in 
the reported proceedings, the following, from the 
Congressional Globe, (page 193,) detailing the 
action of the Hc'use of Representatives: 

"The (]ueslion being on the joint resolution to admit 
Texas into ihe Union, 

" Mr. Milton Brown, of Tennessee, submitted the fol- 
lowinsr as an amendment to it: Strike out amendment of 
Mr. VVeller to the original resolution, and insert as follows : 

"Joint resolution declaring the terms on which Congress 
will admit Texas into the Union as a State. 

"Resolred by the Senate and House of Representatiies of 
the United S'atcs of ^imerica in Congress assembled." * " 

"Third. New States of convenient size, not exceeding 
four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and 
having sutficient population, may hereafter, by consent of 
Ihe said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which 
Bhail be entitled ti admission under the provisions of the 
Federal Constitution. And such States as may be formed 
out of thai portion of said territory lying south of 3G° 30' 
north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compro- 
mise line, shall he admitted into the Union, with or with- 
out slavery, as the people of each State asking admission 
may desire. 

"Mr. Douglas, of niinois, asked the gentleman from 
Tennessee to accept Ihe following as a modification of his 
amendment, to conic in after the last clause : 

" And in such Stales as shall be formed out of said Terri- 
tory, north of said Missouri coniprnmise line, slavery or in- 
voluntary servitude, except for crime, shall be prohibited. 

" Mr. Brown accepted tlTe moditicatioii. 

" The Speaker announced the question to be on agreeing 
to the amendment. 

" Mr. Vinton called for the yeas and nays; and they were 
ordered. 

" The question was then taken by yeas and nays; and re 
BUlted thus — yeas 118, nays 101." 

At page eighty- five of the same work the fol- 
lowing will be found: 

" House of Representatives, January 23, 1845. 

"The House being in Committee of the Whole on the 
Texas question." 

" Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, moved to amend the amend- 
ment of Mr. Weller, by substituting therefor the resolu- 
tions he had the honor to introduce a few days since." 

The resolutions of Mr. Douglas are in the fol- 
lowing words: 

"Joint Resolutions for the reannexation of Texas to the 
United States, in conformity with the treaty of 1603, for 
the purchase of Louisiana. 
"Whereas, ire." * * * * ******** 

"8th. ^Jirf ic if /j/r</ierreso?i'f(f, That nothing herein con- 
tained shall be construed to affect, or in any way interfere 
with the sixth section of the act, approved the sixth of 
March, 1820, admitting Ihe State of Missouri into the 
Union, and commonly called the Missouri compromise, 
that act having been passed and approved prior to the rati 
fication of the treaty commonly called the Texas treaty, by 
which Texas was ceded to Spain." 

Certain gentlemen were then, Mr. Chairman, 
very careful in moving the slavery-exclusion 
clause. On the 10th of August, 1848, the bill to 



establish a territorial government in Oregon was 
pending in the Senate. That bill contained the 
famous exclusion clause of the ordinance of 1787. 
This Mr. Douglas proposed to amend by placing 
before it: " That inasmuch as said Territory is 
north of the parallel of 360 30' north latitude, 
commonly known as the Missouri compromise 
line," therefore that slavery and involuntary ser- 
vitude should be prohibited. Then Mr. Doug- 
las was so wedded to the Missouri act that he 
moved it as an amendment to the exclusion clause 
of the Oregon bill. But he says it is unconstitu- 
tional noio. The Oregon bill passed without this 
amendment of Mr. Douglas, and with its clause 
excluding slavery; but the principles of the Mis- 
souri act had been applied to this territory we sold 
Spain in 1819, and acquired again when Texas 
was annexed. 

The argument, sir, which we heard from the 
gentleman from Kentucky, the other day, that 
this second application of the Missouri principle 
was intended as a final adjustment, to be extended 
ad infinitum, to my mind is baseless and vision- 
ary. It seems to me so, sir — first, because con- 
tiguity of soil and similarity of climate, and apti- 
tude for production, pointed out the Missouri line 
as the natural settlement for Texas; and because, 
secondly, it might wtll happen, in the course 
of time, that we might acquire territory to which 
that line could not be applied. But, sir, in 1850 
Congress was again called upon to adjust the dif- 
ficulties of this slavery question, growing out of 
the annexation of Mexican territory. The excite- 
ment of that period is yet fresh ; ay, sir, so viv- 
idly impressed upon the minds of all, as to need 
no comment. But you know, sir, that side issues 
were created, and that abuses of long standing, 
bitter recriminations, and sectional jealousies, were 
either to be provided for or crushed out. 

Well, sir, you know the Senate's omnibus of 
that year — you know how it toiled and creaked 
on its devious journey along the tortuous track of 
legislation, until it broke down, and let all its pas- 
sengers out on the wayside. They were picked up, 
sir; and, out nf the wreck, certain measures were 
perfected, which have since been dignified with 
the names of the " Compromise Acts of 1850." 
They were: 

1. An act proposing to the State of Texas the 
establishment of her northern and western bound- 
aries, the relinquishment by the said State of all 
territory claimed by her exterior to said bounda- 
ries, and of all her claina^upon the United States, ^ 
and to establish a territorial government for INevy ^ 
Mexico— [September 9, 1850.] !n the fifth clause 

of the first section of said act is the foll<iwing pro- 
viso, introduced on the motion of Mr. Mason, of 
Virginia: 

" Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be co.i- 
strued to impair or qualify anything contained in the '"'rn 
article of Ihe second section of the 'joint resolution *"'/*'}' 
nexing Texas to the United States,' approved IVWC" 1, 
184.5, either as regards the number of States that •'"ay "cre- 
after be formed out of the State of Texas or otberwise." 

In the second section, establishing the Territory 
of New Mexico, is the following proviso: 

« ^nd provided, further, That whenadmiued as a State, 
Ihe said Territory, or anv portion of (he same, shall be re- 
ceived into Ihe Union, udth or without slavery, as their con- 
stitution may prescribe." 

2. An act to establish a territorial government 
for Utah— [September 9, 1850.] This act con- 



'WtV\t. T2Aa rtia* Ci.n>. 



tains the same provision in regard to slavery as 
the preceding. 

3. An act for the admission of the State of Cal- 
ifornia. This has no reference whatever to slavery; 
the constitution of the State, however, prohibited 

4. An act to amend the act entitled "An act 
respecting fugitives from justice and persons escap- 
ing from the service of their masters," approved 
February 12, 1793— [September 16, 1850] 

5. An act to suppress the slave trade in the 
District of Columbia— [September 20, 1850.] 

These five acts constitute what are called the 
compromise measures oflbSO. 

These measure* covered every foot of territory 
not previou.?ly affected by some adjustment of the 
slavery question. They had taken a part of the 
territory north of 36° 30' claimed by Texas, from 
under the influences of the Missouri restriction, 
and had incorporated it with New Mexico, pro- 
viding that it might be slave or free territory, as the 
people of New Mexico might determine when 
they formed their constitution. They had taken 
from the Louisiana territory the " Middle Park," , 
as it is called, a basin in the Rocky Mountains, ! 
and had added it to Utah, and made it subject to 
the same provisions. In all other things the Mis- 
touri compromise teas expressly saved. Mr. Ma- 
son's proviso had saved the ris;ht of Texas to her 
new Stales — slave ^outh of 36° 30'; free north of 
that line, as, indeed, no act impairing that right 
would have been worth a straw, as it would have 
violated one of the fundamental conditions of her 
union with the States. 

I beg, sir, to call your attention to the promi- 
nence given to the Missouri act in all this legis- 
lation — how it was fought for by the southern 
meiTibers here up to the last moment of the ex- 
citing scenes of 1850; how, lest perhaps it might 
have been weakened, provisoes were moved to 
save rights supposed to have accrued under it. 
Yes, sir, and prior to that time, the father of this 
agitation had incorporated it into his Texas res- 
olutions, and into the Oregon bill; and with what 
tenacity it has clung to life and vitality, while the 
doctrines of the ordinance of 1787 have gone to 
rest — ay, sir, while they "sleep the sleep that 
knows no waking!" Yes, sir, legislation relating 
to the Missouri act has been well defined — the act 
has been carefully treated in all its bearings. The 
soul, the embodiment of two adjustments, it was 
so important in the third, that while a different 
principle was applied to the new Territories, it 
was expressly saved as to the old. 

And so, sir, the question stood in the fall of 
1850. Three sessions of Congress have come and 
gone, and each one has treated the question as 
finally settled. Did not the last Congress declare 
a finality as to this slavery question.' Now, I 
ask, would gentlemen have stultified themselves by 
Buch a vole, had anything been needed to make 
them final.' To suspect them of such folly is an 
insult I would not offer to any gentleman amongst 
them. No, sir, they never imagined that the 
Missouri compromise was to be repealed, or 
dreamed that it had been done by others. 

And again, sir: in time both political parties of 
the country came together in convention. They 
nominated their candidates, they adopted their 
platforms. That party to which 1 belong adopted 
the following resolutions as a part of theirs: 



" 9. That Congress has no power under the Con.stitution 
to interfere with or control Ilie dnniolic instiliillons of the 
several Slates, and that such States are tlie sole and proper 
judges of everything appertaining to Ih- ir own affairs not 
prohibited by the Constitution ; that all cflbrls of the Aboli- 
lionists or oihers, made to induce Congrt'ss to interfere with 
questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation 
thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and 
dangerous consequences ; and that all such efforts have an 
inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the peo- 
ple and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, 
and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our po- 
litical inslitutions. 

" 4. Resolved, Thai the foregoini; pTopoaiHon covers, and 
was intended to embrac, the uhole suhjcct of slanery agi- 
tation in Congress ; and therefore the Oemocrailc parly of 
the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by 
and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the 
compromise measures settled by the last Congress, ' the act 
for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor' included; 
which act being designed to carry out an express provision 
of the Constilution, cannot, with fidelity (hereto, be repealed 
1 or so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency. 
I " 5. Resolved, That the Democratic party will resist all 
j attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of if, the agitation 
I of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the 
attempt may he niadc.'^ 

I need not say, sir, the platform was sustained. 
! Mr. Pierce came into office with the prestige of 
! almost entire unanimity. He had pledged him- 
\ self to the platform. His inaugural affirmed that 
pledge. His message reaffirmed it. A dispatch 
had gone from one of his Cabinet to Massachu- 
setts that agitation must be crushed out; yes, sir, 
that free-soil, abolition agitation must be crushed 
out! Crushed out were the words, sir. They were 
ponderous words; and I would to God the man 
who uttered thein possessed the moral courage to 
apply them now to the fathers of this agitation. 

Well, sir, one or two facts more, and I shall 
leave the history of the past. Did you not pass 
a Nebraska bill last year.' You did, sir, the same 
bill now pending here, as a substitute for the bill 
of the Committee on Territories. I need not say, 
sir, that the two bills are different; you know that 
fact but loo well. Well, sir, when you were de- 
bating that bill, did any one discover that the 
Missouri act was disturbed, or superseded by in- 
consistent legislation .' No, sir; but my agitating 
colleague [Mr. Giddings] called your attention to 
I the slavery exclusion of this Missouri act as ap- 
plicable to this very Territory; he said, to multi- 
ply words about it, would weaken the force of that 
prohibition; and in the face of this language the 
bill passed by a large majority — eighteen southern 
gentlemen voting for it, many of whom I seearound' 
me to-day. Strange consistency; strange indeed,, 
when you reflect that but one short year has 
passed away. 

Mr. Atchison said, in the Senate, while dis- 
cussing the bill of last se.ssion: 

" I had two objpctjBns to it. One was that the Indian 
title in that Territor^had not been extinguished, or, at 
least, a very small nortion of it had been. Another was 
the Missouri compromise, or, as it is commonly caileti, the 
slavery restriction. It was my opinion at that lime— and 
I am not now very clear on that subject— that the law of 
Congress, when tlie State of Missouri was admitted into 
the Union, excluding slavery from the Teriitory of Louisi- 
ana, north of 36° 30', would be enforced in that Territory, 
unless it was specially rescinded ; ami, whether that law 
was in accordance with the Constitution ot' the United 
States or not, it would do its work, and that work would 
be to preclude slaveholders from g'<iiig into that Territory. 
But when 1 came to look into that question, I found that 
there was no prospect, no hope of a repeal of the Missouri 
compromise excludiuL' slavery from that Territory. Now, 
sir, I am free to admit, that at this moment, at this hour, 
and for all lime to come, I should oppose the organization 
or the settlement of that Territory, unless my constituents^. 



and thr consUtuentsof the whole South, of the slave Strjtes 
of thf Union, could go into it upon the same footing, with 
enual ri-lits and ei]U^\ privili;ges, carrying tliai species 
of pr.iperiv with them as other people of tlii3 Union. 
Ye-! Mr, i acknowledge that that would have governed 
me, but I have no hope that the restriction will ever be 

"^"Yhave always been of opinion that the first great error 
comniitli'din the political history of this country was the 
ordinance of 1787, rendering the Northwest Territory free 
territory. The iie.xt great error was the Missouri coinpro- 
nii-«. iiut tliey are both irremediable. There is no remedy 
for thiiii. We must submit to them. I am prepared to do 
it. It is evident that the Missouri compromise cannot be 
repealed. So far as that question is concerned, we might 
as well agree to the admission of this Territory now asne.xt 
year, or live or ten years heuce."—Conircssional Globe, 
Secoutl Session 32 Cong. vol. 26, ynge 1113. 

Sir, I maintain that all this shows the wicked- 
ness, the bad faith of this bill. It proves the in- 
dividuality, the exclusiveness of each, and every- 
one of these slavery compromises — that they were 
never dependent the one upon the other, but they 
were each ai'd every one of them, separate and 
independent adjustments of a great and dangerous 
question, having application to particular territo- 
ries clearly defined in each. Originally partak- 
ing of the nature of compacts, repeated legislation 
has legitimated them; solemnly and in hWnesty 
has the faith of the nation — of political parties — 
been pledged to their support, and they stand there 
now, partaking of the nature of great landmarks, 
sanctified by the approval of the people, and in 
their nature irrepealable. 

What do you gain by a repeal.' Is it the re- 
moval of any imaginary line which galls the pride 
of any particular locality. No, sir, else no such 
struggles to extend it would ever have been made. 
What then ? Do you expect practical results from 
the repeal .' If so, what are they .•' Make them 
manifest.' I want to see them. 

I oppose this bill, sir, for reasons of my own. 
I oppose it because it is unjust. You cannot re- 
store the status quo. You said that slavery might 
go south of the line of 36° 30', and it went there, 
because you said it might go, and because north- 
ern emigration chooses logo where slavery cannot 
go. It has peopled the country south of that 
line, with negroes and their masters. I do not 
complain of this; it was in the bond. There was 
Louisiana, she had been already admitted. By 
your very act, you brought in Missouri. That 
was in the bond. Then came Arkansas, with her 
immense territory. Here they are, all of them. 
You have yet south of the line a strip of Indian 
country, enough for a State, perhaps. You have 
the influences around that sufficient to fix the 
character of the embryo State there, and when the 
savageisimpelled,God knows where, byprogress, 
there comes another slave Stat^ All this is secure. 
The power is not speculative-^tis practical — it is 
here. Yes, sir, the bond has been filled, the povnd 
of flesh has been taken. You have got all that was 
bargained toyou, notwithstandingthe bittertaunts 
some gentlemen direct at the punic faith of the 
North. Punic faith! I do not stand here, sir, to 
defend northern faith. It needs no defense. In 
every hour of peril; in the darkest days of your 
lep;islalion, the North has stood up to the Consti- 
tution and the Union, with unfaltering devotion, 
with generous concession. What honorable sac- 
rifices were demanded for peace and concord, she 
has made. What perils were to be encountered, 
she has met, and met them with an eye single to 



the glory and prosperity of our common country. 
I envy not the zeal which creates imaginary 
wrongs, for a basis of complaint and assault upon 
any portion of our common country. I admire 
not that tone in the public sentiment of any locality 
which finds solace only in the bitter invectives 
which its representatives direct at fraternal asso- 
ciations. No, sir, as a whole, we are the glory of 
all lands, and yet our mission is but lialf accom- 
plished. I say, in the language of others, "con- 
quer your prejudices." Conquer that pruriency 
of imagination which sees a covert assaultin every 
word spoken on this floor by a northern man, 
unless, indeed, he sings hosannas to the institution 
of slavery. _ • 

Sir, I have listened with amazement to the de- 
nunciations bandied about on this floor. I have 
heard the citizens of more than one half of your 
great nation branded as incendiaries, fanatics, and 
Abolitionists; and gentlemen speak of us as if 
there were contamination in the association. 

A gentleman from Mississippi, [Mr. Barks- 
dale,"] the other day, in his remarks here, read 
from a Vermont statute to show that in one case 
resistance had been made to the execution of a 
law of Congress. Were a drag-net cast over the 
land, and the fulminations of every newspaper 
writer, every frothy, demagogical stump orator, 
and every insane preacher brought together, I am 
not aware, sir, that it would have any other eflTect 
than to strengthen the attachment of our people 
to their Government. They would show only 
that error, in a free Government, is harmless, so 
long as truth is left free to combat it. That we 
have men at the North who are not friendly to 
our Government, who are over zealous, or who 
are weak, who does not well know.' But such 
men are not confined to any single locality, nor 
was the example quoted by the gentleman from 
Mississippi the only one furnished by our history 
where resistance to a law of Congress has been 
advised and counseled. Far from it, sir. It ap- 
pears to me, sir, that we have heard in southern 
States, not many years since, of political battles 
waged in opposition to these same compromises 
gentlemen are so anxious to extend — of canvasses 
where the issue, so far as practical results were 
concerned, was union or disunion — where the 
overthrow of our Constitution was openly spoken 
of, and the consequences of that overthrow calmly 
contemplated. Notwithstanding all this, we are 
yet together. NationalisnijSecessionism, and abo- 
litionism, are all here — afl^represented. All shades 
have been willing to accept office; and if they have 
not loved the Union as well as they might love it, 
they have manifested but little hostility, at least, 
to the benefits it confers. All this, sir, proves that, 
while we have mutual faults, a recurrence to this 
bickering, this eternal denunciation and complaint 
is unworthy of us — unworthy of our high posi- 
tions here, and productive of no good to any in- 
terest. Such things evince no statesmanship, no 
liberality, no general or extensive appreciation of 
the character of our country and its institutions. 

But what is the other side of the picture.' We 
were to have all north of 36° 30'. What have 
we realized.' Iowa; nothing more. But now, 
when the performance on the one side is complete 
and ample, it is proposed to remove the restriction 
and allow slavery to go north of the line, as you 
had before permitted it to go south of that line. 



As this would be a concession without a consid- 
eration, I for one will have none of it. I will not | 
join in making it. I 

What can you give the North for this conces- ' 
gion? What do you give her ? Can she profit by j 
the vast domain of Texas? Can you disturb the 
compact you made with her, the fundamental con- ) 
ditions of her annexation? I say you cannot.] 
That compact must stand, though the Missouri 
compact falls. It is irrepealable. Texas holds 
your bond; this bill does not reach her, and you 
cannot reach her without her consent. Her rights 
are saved. Am I right or wrong in this? Let 
me quote from one now dead. I quote from a 
speech, sir, that the compromise men in 1850 : 
said saved the Union. I never attributed to it that J 
efficacy, but 1 always thought it embodied sound j 
logic: I 

"Now, what is here stipulated, enacted, secured.' It i 
is, that all Texas south of 36° 30', which is nearly the whole 
of it, shall be admiued into the Union as a slave State. It 
was a slave State, and therefore came in as a slave State ; \ 
and the guarantee is that new States shall he made out of it, 
and that such States as are formed out of that portion ofj 
Texas lyins south of 36° 30' may come in as slave Slates : 
to the number of four, in addition to the State then in ex- ! 
istence, and admitted at that time by these resolutions. I 
know no form of legislation which can strengthen that. I 
know no mode of recognition that can add a little of weight 
to it. I listened respectfully to the resolutions of my hon 
orable friend from Tennessee, [Mr. Bell.] He proposed 
to recognize that stipulation with Texas. But any addi- 
tional recogniticm would weaken the force of it, because it 
stands here on the ground of a contract, a thing done for 
a consideration. It is a law founded on a contract with 
Texas, and designed to carry that contract into effect. A 
recognition founded not on any consideration or any con- 
tract would not be so strong as it now stands on the face of 
the resolution. Now, I know no way, I candidly confers, 
in which this Government, acting in good faith, as I trust it 
always will, can relieve itself from that stipulation and 
pledge, by any honest course of legislation whatever. And, 
therefore, I say again ttiat, so far as Texas is concerned — 
the whole of Texas south of 36° 30', which I suppose em 
braces all the slave Territory — there is no land, not an acre, 
Uie character of which is not established by law, a law 
which cannot be repealed without the violation of a con- 
tract, and plain disregard of the public faith." 

So said Mr. Webster in 1850, in his speech on 
the compromise measures; and he was good au- 
thority then — that is to say, good compromise ati- 
thority. 1 say, then, sir, this trade is unequal; and 
all that we get for conceding the right to establish 
slavery in an em|Mre is, the chance of making free 
territory of a strip thirty miles wide, taken from 
the Indian Territory south of 36° 30', and added 
by the bill to the proposed Territory of Kansas. 
I will have no non-intervention at such terms. On 
the one side, is full perfermance; on the other, a 
want of consideration and broken faith. 

But, sir, I am told that slavery can never go into 
these Territories. Then why all this excitement? 
Are you having all this difficulty about a practical 
absurdity? Did you mean a humbug with this 
bill — repeal in its mouth, and a stump " speech in 
its belly ?" If so, let me say it is presuming a little 
too much upon the patience of high-minded rep- 
resentatives, to array them before the country as 
the principal characters in a broad farce. I think 
the bill has a meaning — that slavery may well go 
to Kanzas; indeed, that it is likely to go there. 
But, although the Almighty had reared against it 
impenetrable obstacles, though he had stamped 
" prohiiiition " on every bluff, on every rock, and 
blade of grass throughout the whole country, I 
yet would not vote to remove this obstacle of the 
Missouri exclusion. It ought to stand, sir, for 



complete performance. Once you said slavery 
should rot go north of 36° 30'. It is too late now 
to say that it may go there. 

I am opposed to this bill because it" agitates." 
I am pledged against agitation. When I gave in. 
my adhesion to the Baltimore platfnrm, I made 
no promise to the ear to break to the hope. I was 
sincere. I was elected on that jilatforrti, discussed 
it, and vindicated it against the assaults of Free- 
Soilers, and of Whis;s, too, who attacked ours, 
while spitting upon their own. I thought, sir, that 
I saw in that platform practical good. I took the 
platforms of the two parties, sir, and I argued that 
upon this slavery question they were both right. 
That this great and absorbing question of slavery 
had received its quietus; that it was banished 
from the Halls of Congress forever! Yes, sir, I 
said forever, and I believed forever! Vain word, 
Mr. Chairman, now dwindled in signification to 
the brief span of a butterfly's existence! I said, 
sir, that every foot of territory to be affected by 
the question was already under compromises, that 
shut out further action; that henceforth we had 
an open sea, and plain sailing. 

Well, sir, everybody, except the Free-Soilers, 
held this language. We were believed, trusted, 
and sustained. And why were viis sustained ? 
Because, sir, the people were wearied, sick, and 
disgusted with agitation. They wanted repose. 
Gentlemen make a sad mistake if they suppose that 
the triumph of 1852 was the triumph of men sim- 
ply. It was more than that — it was the triumph 
of a principle of non-agitation. Established by 
the people because they wanted repose, the faith, 
the honor, the character of the party depend upon ' 
the faithful execution of the trust. Although a 
short memory is the worst fault I find with many 
who have made their marks upon this ijuestion, 
the faith 1 pledged I will redeem. 1 said I would 
give no countenance to agitation, and I do not in- 
tend in the first important vote I give hereto enact 
a deliberate falsehood. Well, sir, we came on 
here, and heard no word of this repeal. Every- 
body deprecated agitation. The author of the 
Senate bill reported against agitation and repeal. 
The President was against agitation. The Union 
was against agitation and repeal. And so we went 
on swimmingly. But, presto! The change that 
came " o'er the spirit of our dream "was far from 
pleasant; and this question , sprung upon us like a 
fire-bell in the night, disturbed and dispelled all 
our visions of peace. 

Sir, though repeal now is expedient, when it 
was wrong three months ago — though party tests 
have been spoken of— I will be true to my pledge 
not to agitate. I recognize no man's right to 
make tests for me. I will not submit to this as a 
party test; nor shall one of my constituents over 
whom I have a tittle of influence. I repudiate it, 
sir; and as I will neither submit to it as a test, 
nor staffer myself to be driven from the party upon 
it, I shall leave others to reconcile their course 
with their party, and treat this question as one 
outside of party requirements, and of interest to 
the whole country. But I say, sir, that this Ne- 
braska bill violates the faith we pledged, as Dem- 
ocrats, to the country. 

Sir, I beg to ask honorable gentlemen, What is 
proposed to be gained by this repeal ? What do you 
effect, if you do not simply grant to slavery the right 
to go north of 36° 30'? We have all heard, sir, of 



6 



ground taken and abandoned with regard to this 
bill; of supersedure set up, and inconsistency 
substituted for it; of noniiitervenllon, sustained 
by a direct repeal (fa local law. Yes, sir, we have 
Been all this, and yet some of us are not aatisfted. 
We want a reason, a well-grounded, well-defined 
reason for this agitation. Have you any other 
than that which I have slated? You say, sir, you 
have;— at least, hoiiorablegeiitlemen heresay they 
have. What is it, sir? T believe gentlemen say 
we must do this thing to harmonize, our legisla- 
tion — to render it consistent on this question. 
We are told the legislation of 1850 embodied cer- 
tain great princij)Tes — established a great prece- 
dent, which, if we would restore a constitutional 
government, we must perpetuate in our legisla- 
tion; that we liave heretofore groped in the dark, 
waded in the slough of ignorance and folly, and 
tliat we must now undo our work, and joint and 
dove-tail anew, until we make a harmonious whole 
of the matter. Now, sir, what is all this worth? 
what practical good is there in it? Will it pay? 

Harmonious action! When will you have it on 
the slavery question? Have you ever harmon- 
ized on it since the famous ordinance of 1787 was 
born ? Never^ sir. And you never will harmonize 
again until the evils of a dense population render 
emancipation a pecuniary benefit to the holders of 
slaves. Whether that day will dawn on us as a 
nation of confederates; whether it will see us in 
possession of our glorious Union unimpaired, time 
alone can determine. It never will, if the feeling 
which has sanctioned these slavery compromises 
is weakened, and the topic is thrown into the le- 
gislative arena, to become the sport of ambitious 
aspirations. 1 impugn no man's actions. I at- 
tribute to no man corrupt motives. I desire only 
to speak of effects and consequences. But 1 do 
say, that a frequent recurrence to this question fa- 
miliarizes the minds of our people with the opinions 
of men as to consequences which may loosen the 
bonds of union, promote discord, and result in 
internal dissensions, and then disunion. These 
have been my fears; and 1 have supported these 
compromises as settlements not to be reopened, 
because the evils resulting from reopening them 
overbalance the good to be derived from such a 
course. Hence, to be consistent, 1 can do no less 
than oppose this bill. 

But, sir, you established no new principle in 
1850. I say, sir, you established no new prin- 
ciple. If you did, where is it? I have exam- 
ined the measures of that year, and cannot find 
it. Where i.s the new )irinciple? Was it in the 
enactment of the fugitive slave law? No, sir; 
that principle was born with your Constitution. 
It was not an original principle, however original 
some of the details of that law may be. Was it 
in the admi.ssion of California? Had you not 
admitted States before? Was it in the suppres- 
sion of the slave trade in the District of Colum- 
bia? Was that not an undoubted power possessed 
by Congress, exercised from high considerations 
of humanity, and had not Congress before t)ro- 
hibited the foreign slave trade? Was it in buying 
off Texas, and organizing a territorial government 
in New Mexico? You had treated with States 
before, and obtained cessions of their territory. 
You had organized territorial governments before, 
and what had you provided for them ? A gov- 
ernment, a judiciary to administer the laws, a 



Legislative Assembly to create local law.s, and an 
Executive to supervise the administration of those 
laws. You had extended over them the Consti- 
tution of the United States, Rnd laws not locally 
inapplicable. You had, with a decree of uni- 
formity not often found in legislation, jirovided 
nearly similar privileges for all of them, except 
upon the slavery question. In some you had pro- 
hibited slavery; in others you had said it mit^lit exist. 
Now, sir, wh'it were the features of your lerrito- 
rial bills of 1850? Let us take Utah for an exam- 
ple. I ask, sir, what did you do for Utah? You 
bounded the Territory; you defined its limits. 
What else ? You said: 

"And, when adinitti'd as a Stale, the said Tcrrimry, or 
any portion of Ihf same, «hall be n ceived into the Union, 
Willi or willioiit slavery, as their conslilutioii may pre- 
scribe at ilietinie of their pdniisfsion." 

You further reserved to Congress the right to 
subdivide the Territory, provided officers for the 
Territory, and declared, as to the legislative pow- 
er of the Territorial Assembly, as follows: 

" Sec. 6. That the lefjislative power of tlie General Aft- 
sembly shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, 
consistent with the Constilulion of the United States and 
the provisions of this act, but no law shall he passed inter- 
fering with the primary disposal of the soil ; no lax shall 
be imposed upon the properly ol me United Slates, &c." 
* * * "All laws passed by the Let'i.-laiive .Assembly and 
Governor shall be submitted to the Congp'ss of the United 
States, and, if disapproved, ^hall be null and of no efl'ect. " 

"Sec. 17. That the Constiiiiiioii and laws of ihe Ui'iied 
Stales are hereby extended over and declared to be in force 
in said Territory of Utah, so lar as the same, or any pro- 
vision thereof, may be applicable." 

This is the whole of the compromise aa appli- 
cable to Utah, and also of New Mexico — the great 
principle men are talking about — that which must 
swallow up ail others. 

Mr. Chairman, in my opening remaks 1 alluded 
to certain amendments made to the Missouri bill 
when first under discussion here. They prove, 
sir, that the desire to prevent her admission then 
sprang from a desire to limit her rights as a State; 
to control domestic institutions already formed, 
and to compel her to emancipation before they 
would admit her. Yes, sir, they sought to make 
slavery the test of her admission or exclusion, 
without considering that slavery must have been 
there, to some extent, when we acquired the ter- 
ritory in 1803; that it was protected by the treaty 
of cession; and that, fostered by a congeniality of 
soil, climate, and production, it had very naturally 
grown up with the Territory. It was not, sir, an 
effort to exclude slaverwjin a Territory where it 
never had planted its raot. No, sir, it was an 
exclusion designed to be binding on her in her 
.sovereign capacity as a State, after her admission. 
Well, sir. Congress, while prohibiting slavery in 
Territories, never has made slavery the test of a 
State's admission, where slavery actually existed 
when the application was made. Never, sir. It 
was not done, sir, in the case of Missouri, or of 
Arkansas. The design was overruled in the case 
of Missouri. In Arkansas, the question of slavery 
was not raised in the abstract. Judging from the 
debates prior to her admission, the objections 
were founded upon an article in her Constitution, 
which, it was contended, prevented the Legisla- 
tive Assembly from any action on the .slave ques- 
tion, though her people might be unanimous for 
emancipation. 

Well, sir, where was your principle? Was it 
in the grant of powers to the Legislative Assem- 



bly ? No, sir; you had granted similar powers 
to ail your territorial ors:anizations. Was it in 
the provision requiring all their laws to come 
before this body tor supervision? You had pro- 
vided that many a time and oft before. No, sir, 
you founded no principle. Your territorial laws 
as to all subjpcfs of legislation were the same as 
those which had preceded them; and the super- 
vision of Congress over the territorial laws to be 
formed still kepi your Territories dependent upon 
this body, and killed the principle of non-inter- 
vention stone dead. They could not legislate on 
the slavery question of themselves; whatever they 
did came here for supervision. 

What did you do for the slavery question? 
You said, to quote again: 

" And when adniilled as a State, [States,] the said Ter- 
ritory, ['I'erritories.J or any portion oftlie same, shall be 
received into the Union, wilh or without slavery, as their 
conslitutions may provide at llie lime ol' their admission." 

There it is, sir; that is the whole of it. They 
were to be admitted as States, with or without 
slavery, as their conslitutions may provide at the 
time of their admission. That, sir, as I under- 
stand it, was a pledge of faith on the part of the 
nation, through its representatives, that the sla- 
very test, the test sought to be applied to Missouri, 
should not be applied to these Territories. When 
they came to form a constitution; when they set 
about the organization of a fundamental law to 
govern themselves; when the time came that the 
supervision of Congress was to cease, and the 
people of the Territories resumed all the rights of 
a sovereign people; of a sovereign State. Look at 
the language, sir, and tell me if it does not refer 
to that time and none other ? And this was all, 1 
say, sir, that if any local territorial law excluding 
slavery existed there, the law of 18.50 did not 
repeal it, that so far as these slavery provisions 
are concerned, it is yet vital, yet living. And as 
for the rest, tlie pretense of non-intervention can- 
not exist for a moment against provisions which 
clearly establish a state of territorial dependence 
upon Coni;ress. 

And this, sir, is the legislation which super- 
seded the Missouri compromise. This the El 
Dorado of our political future, is it? Sir, to my 
mind there never was a inovement so transparent, 
so baseless, so hollow as all this. Again, I say, 
sir, I will have none of it. 

The argument, that because you had disturbed 
the boundaries of Texas, and of the Louisiana 
Territory, and that therefpre you had overthrown 
the Mi.^soiiri compromise, is equally baseless. 
You saved Texas expressly by the Mason pro- 
viso; and as to the small poriidn of the Louisiana 
Territory incorporated with Utah— a portion, com- 
pared with the rest, no more than a " patch upon 
the earth's surface"— it is against reason and ju- 
dicial construct^n to give to the laws of Utah 
any greater extent or force than to the territory so 
taken. 

I say again, the legislation of 1850 embodied 
no principle. It was an expedient. There it 
stands, sir— examine it. A naked pledge that, 
when the States formed from the Territory seek 
admission, the slavery test shall not be applied to 
them, is all there is of principle; and that, sir, is 
no principle. It is a compromise; no higher in its 
nature, no more sacred, not less liable in itself to 
repeal, than ia the Missouri compromise. 



Gentlemen talk of «' non-intervention," of 
"squatter sovereignty." You have never legiti- 
mated it. You have no Territory — not one, sir — 
independent in any one thing of congressional 
supervision. Is this a time to apply the doctrine? 
Must you reach that goal by marching over the 
ruins of broken adjustments, of pledges falsified, 
and faitli trodden down? And why, as a princi- 
pje, do you seek now to apply it to Nebraska and 
Kansas? Would there not be as ivm.-h justice in 
attacking Orej;on, or Washington, or Minnesota, 
and in the repeal of slavery exclusion provisions 
there? Must you not do so, to give tlie doctrine 
universal territorial application? And is the pro- 
hibition in eitherof these Territories of any higher 
character than that of the Missouri act? No, sir. 
Yet, who here will raise his voice to disturb the 
exclusion in those Territories? Or when would 
you effect such a thing, were any one here hardy 
enough to attempt it? Never, sir. The effort 
would be a ruinous one — ruinous to peace, con- 
cord, and fraternal union. Ruinous to the highest 
and dearest interests of our common country. It 
would drive the wedge of disunion home, destroy 
national legislation, and exalt in its stead sus- 
picion, discord, and sectional strife. Yet consist- 
ency points it out as a natural consequence of 
success in this projected repeal of the Missouri 
compromise. 

Mr. Chairman, as I have thus taken myground, 
I shall not stop to inquire whether either of these 
bills embodies the true spirit of non-intervention. 
It is unnecessary, at least for my purpose. I care 
not to inquire. There is a clause in the Senate 
bill, which taking the territorial action of the past 
as a test, is indefensible. The Senate has deemed 
it proper to make a distinction amongst men, in 
the application of its doctrine of squatter sover- 
eignty. They have excluded the emigrant. The 
justiceof this mustbegathered from yourpastacts. 
Less tender were they of the rights of citizenship 
when Oregon, and Washington, and Minnesota 
were organized. And not many years since, I 
think. Congress naturalized some thousands of 
Mexicans, Spaniards, and half-breeds, by treaty 
stipulations with a foreign Power. And there is 
a gentleman on this floor, legitimated by that ac- 
tion, as a Delegatefrom New Mexico, who cannot 
speak a word of your language. I have no qualm- 
ish fears of foreigners. I represent on this floor 
three thousand German voters. They are men of 
industry, peace, and order. They are sincerely 
attached to your country and its Constitution. 
They are men of substance, of enterprise, and 
many of them men of superior education. I should 
be false to them , and false to myself, if I gave a 
vote which cast about them any disabilities I my- 
self am not subject to. 1 take this occasion, sir, 
not to fillibuster on this subject, but to pay a 
tribute to the foreigners who have sought your 
western lands. I have found few of them im- 
provident, but very few, and I know of no class 
of your people, who cultivate the virtues of econ- 
omy, sociality, and order, to a higher degree than 
the rural foreign population of your western 
States. My experience has been confined to that 
class of it, but I believe it true of the whole body 
of that population in the West. 

But if you want to declare a principle in relation 
to non-intervention, I will go with you. I will 
go with you in support of that doctrine whenever 



8 



V 



it can be applied, without the disturbance of exist- 
ing compromises. I will say, sir, that it will be 
right and proper to apply to all subsequently ac- 
quired territory, provided you create the substance 
and not tlie shadow of non-intervention. It must 
be practical, eminently practical. 

You must yield to the Territories the power to 
legislate on all constitutional subjects, and not the 
power to legislate on the slavery question alone. 

You must emancipate them from Executive and 
Senatorial control, by vesting in the people thereof 
the right to select their own officers. 

You must not prescribe or limit the right of suf- 
frage, but leave that question to be determined by 
the people. 

And, finally, emancipate their local legislation 
from the supervision and control of Congress. 

This is non-intervention — the non-intervention 
1 am for. 

But, sir, I have extended these remarks further 
than I had intended. In conclusion, I will say, 
that i nev^r desired again to discuss any ques- 
tion connected with this slavery issue. For years 
the Democratic party in the North, planting itself 
upon its constitutional obligations, has sustained 
a war, the more bitter to them because it was 
urged upon them by men, between whom and 
themselves there was no difference of opinion as 
to the morality, the consequences, and influences 
of slavery. But, sir, they held that there was a 
vast difference between moral condemnation of 
slavery and that " higher law" abstraction which 
spat upon and refused the obligations of the Con- 
stitution and of citizenship. In this agitation I 
see disastrous consequences to that party which 
has been national in its character. They have 
been taueht that your Constitution itself was a 
compromise of this slavery question, and like 
all subsequent compromises, sacred, because of 
the mighty interests it combined. I need not say 
again that faith will be weakened. Though sin- 
cerely attached to my party, yet I fear more the 
effects of this agitation upon the country. I fear, 
sir, that clamor, generated by this repeal, which 
shall cry unceasingly for a repeal of all compro- 
mises; for a war of sections; for continued strife. 
I shall strive to avert it, by all my influence, by 
all my efforts, but my first duty, 1 believe, in ac- 
complishing this, is to vote against this bill, or 
these bills, in their present shape. 

Sir, i make no war upon the institutions of any 
State. Where slavery exists, let those affected 
by it bear its consequences. If they are good, I 
shall not envy my southern brethren its advant- 
ages; if they are evil, let those who cherish it bear 



the burden. I heard, sir, early in this session, 
an eloquent gentleman from South Carolina, pass 
upon his State a lofty panegyric; he spoke of her 
chivalry, her pride, and her prosperity. It gave 
me pleasure to hear him so speak, and I honored 
him for his zeal and his devotion to her interests. 
But, sir, I am a citizen of a free State, and am 
myself a laborer. By education, by example, and 
by association, I have been taught to look upon 
slavery as an evil. My prejudices are all against 
it. But while these things are true of me, l have 
never yet refused it its rights — its constitutional 
rights, as I honestly understood them. JN'ur shall 
I ever do so. But I am wedded to the interests of 
my own State and her people; and before God 
and man, we stand this day a monument, erected 
by the industry of our own hands, under his 
providence, to free labor. I would to God, sir, 
that the only emulation here, were, as to our 
respective capacities for good, without refer- 
ence to local interests. Were that the case, sir, 
I would poi^t to Ohio. There she stands; look 
at her and her position. I see around me the 
Representatives of many States — the Representa- 
tives from the State in which I was born. Fifty 
years ago, and they were wealthy, prosperous, and 
great. Most of them had historic names, and 
their interests were pressed upon this floor by a 
generation of statesmen now in their tombs. Ohio 
had then not even a name; butv/e are here to-day 
in our strength; stronger than all but two of our 
sisters, and the peer of any of them in all the ele- 
ments of growing power. We have vanquished 
the wilderness; we have conquered all the priva- 
tions of pioneer life. Her hamlets are peaceful 
and industrious; her cities thronged with the bus- 
tling evidences of power. Her railroads are spread 
like a network over her whole surface; her canals 
float to an annual market the wealth of an empire. 
On her hills and in her valleys the church and the 
school-house stand side by side, and she has legit- 
imated universal education by her fundamental 
law. Her constitution will challenge the admira- 
tion of any State; and across the land the gigantic 
shadow of her two millions of people is thrown 
in bold relief, while the voice that ascends from 
her every hill and every valley, is not that of re- 
proach, not that of recrimination, but the friendly 
voice of a great brotherhood, pointing to the 
blessings of freedom, and inviting competition in 
that high and honorable path which she has 
marked out for herself^j. Yes, sir; let gentlemen 
stand up manfully for t«r (own; Ohio will reecho 
their congratulations; WX when contemned, shC' 
can point to results and answer every cliarge. 



Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 








mm 







mm 




M LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 897 822 5 ? 









